When Julia Cheek walked onto the set of “Shark Tank,” her five potential investors wore their trademark scowls. Yet within minutes, their demeanor changed, eyebrows raised and heads nodding as they peppered her with questions about her company, EverlyWell, and its promise to revolutionize medical diagnostics

When Julia Cheek walked onto the set of “Shark Tank,” her five potential investors wore their trademark scowls. Yet within minutes, their demeanor changed, eyebrows raised and heads nodding as they peppered her with questions about her company, EverlyWell, and its promise to revolutionize medical diagnostics

“EverlyWell is transforming lab testing — a $25 billion market — to be simple, convenient, and useful for you,” she told the judges with a smile. Beside her sat a display of the company’s wares: mail-order test kits for everything from testosterone levels to sexually transmitted infections.

When Cheek left the stage, she had a fresh $1 million commitment from investor Lori Greiner. And the company is wowing more than just the television judges. EverlyWell garnered $6 million in sales last year, a spokeswoman said, and Cheek told the judges that this year they expected that to double.

In September, the U.S. Department of Agriculture gave the green light to a version of the plant Camelina sativa, an important oilseed crop that had been genetically engineered using CRISPR to produce enhanced omega-3 oil. What was interesting about this approval was that the USDA did not ask that the inventors of the plant endure the usual regulatory hoops required to sell biotech crops

In September, the U.S. Department of Agriculture gave the green light to a version of the plant Camelina sativa, an important oilseed crop that had been genetically engineered using CRISPR to produce enhanced omega-3 oil. What was interesting about this approval was that the USDA did not ask that the inventors of the plant endure the usual regulatory hoops required to sell biotech crops

The next month, a drought-tolerant soybean variety developed with CRISPR also got a quick pass from the USDA.

That’s because while those crops were certainly gene-edited, they were not genetically “modified,” according to USDA regulations. While scientists used CRISPR to snip and tweak the plant’s DNA, they did not add any foreign DNA to it. This, the USDA has now repeatedly found, means those CRISPR-edited plants fall outside of regulatory purview.

People who abhor the thought of being kept alive with feeding tubes or other types of artificial nutrition and hydration have, for years, had a way out: They could officially document their wishes to halt such interventions using advance directives. But caregivers and courts have rarely honored patients’ wishes to refuse food and fluids offered by hand.

People who abhor the thought of being kept alive with feeding tubes or other types of artificial nutrition and hydration have, for years, had a way out: They could officially document their wishes to halt such interventions using advance directives. But caregivers and courts have rarely honored patients’ wishes to refuse food and fluids offered by hand.

People who abhor the thought of being kept alive with feeding tubes or other types of artificial nutrition and hydration have, for years, had a way out: They could officially document their wishes to halt such interventions using advance directives.

Even patients diagnosed with progressive dementia who are able to record crucial end-of-life decisions before the disease robs them of their mental capacity could write advance directives.

But caregivers and courts have rarely honored patients’ wishes to refuse food and fluids offered by hand.

And one major culprit? The confusion over “date” labels on foods. Once a “sell by” date has passed, lots of us have tossed out food that’s perfectly safe to eat. The typical family in the U.S. spends about $1,500 on food that is thrown away. This adds up to billions of dollars of waste.

A new initiative, announced Wednesday, aims to harmonize “use by” labels around the globe.

The Consumer Goods Forum, a network of 400 of the largest food and consumer goods companies around the globe — including Walmart, Kellogg, Nestle, Campbell Soup, and Amazon — is asking retailers and food producers to take steps to simplify date labels.

Focusing on care delivery to save money is like trying to reduce the costs of house fires by focusing on firefighters and fire stations. A more natural question should be: What drives poor health in the U.S., and what can be done about it?

Focusing on care delivery to save money is like trying to reduce the costs of house fires by focusing on firefighters and fire stations. A more natural question should be: What drives poor health in the U.S., and what can be done about it?

The national debate on health care is moving into a new, hopefully bipartisan phase.

The fundamental underlying challenge is cost – the massive and ever-rising price of care which drives nearly all disputes, from access to benefit levels to Medicaid expansion.

So far, policymakers have tried to reduce costs by tinkering with how care is delivered. But focusing on care delivery to save money is like trying to reduce the costs of house fires by focusing on firefighters and fire stations.

A more natural question should be: What drives poor health in the U.S., and what can be done about it?

We know the answer. Food is the number one cause of poor health in America. As a cardiologist and public health scientist, I have studied nutrition science and policy for 20 years. Poor diet is not just about individual choice, but about the systems that make eating poorly the default for most Americans.

If we want to cut down on disease and achieve meaningful health care reform, we should make it a top nonpartisan priority to address our nation’s nutrition crisis.

Tasia Smith: “Politicians and scholars sometimes cast obesity as a problem that largely afflicts the poor. But as most obese adults aren’t poor and most low-income adults aren’t obese, this is a misconception”

Tasia Smith: “Politicians and scholars sometimes cast obesity as a problem that largely afflicts the poor. But as most obese adults aren’t poor and most low-income adults aren’t obese, this is a misconception”

Politicians and scholars sometimes cast obesity as a problem that largely afflicts the poor. But as most obese adults aren’t poor and most low-income adults aren’t obese, this is a misconception.

As a researcher who looks into these demographics, I find the intersection of obesity and income among Americans to be much more complex than commonly held myths suggest.

Left unaddressed, misunderstandings about the links between poverty and obesity can end up justifying anti-poverty budget cuts. In light of the Trump administration’s efforts to slash spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, widely known as food stamps, I would like to clarify the connections between obesity, income and SNAP.